IN VIETNAM, AN AMERICAN MILITARY VICTORY LED TO POLITICAL DEFEAT. COULD THE SAME BE HAPPENING NOW IN IRAQ?

Many historians believe, and I agree with them, that the Vietnam War was lost politically beginning with the Tet Offensive in January of 1968. The irony is that as a purely military matter, Tet was a disaster for the Viet Cong insurgency. Every military analysis I have seen of that battle concludes that, by coming out into the open in a failed attempt to ignite a popular uprising in the South, the VC subjected themselves to the overwhelming firepower of the U.S. military resulting in massive casualties. After Tet, the war in the South was fought mainly by regular units of the NVA. Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a catastrophe for the Viet Cong and, if it were not for the political effect domestically in the U.S., would have (combined with a massive bombing campaign against the North, as was done in 1972) almost certainly led to a favorable political settlement. Could the same thing be happening now in Iraq?

In yesterday's post, I quote from Austin Bay's recent optimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq. Today, Karl Zinsmeister has an equally encouraging view.

Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside.

Many of the soldiers I spent time with during this spring had also been deployed during the initial invasion back in 2003. Almost universally they talked to me about how much change they could see in the country. They noted progress in the attitudes of the people, in the condition of important infrastructure, in security.

These assessments mirror those I have read on a number of military blogs, and by digging deeply into MSM reports. Even Kofi Annan believes there is progress taking place in Iraq. If these reports reflect the deeper reality in Iraq, despite the headline grabbing suicide bomb attacks and more effective IED attacks, then we truly could be watching a repeat of Tet.

The spectacular nature of the enemy attacks, killing Iraqis by the dozen and killing and wounding American soldiers and Marines at a faster pace than at any other time in the conflict, is clearly contributing to the marked decline in public support for the war. That, in turn, has led to more politicians calling for a timetable for American withdrawal.

At this juncture, the Iraqi people may find themselves more fortunate than the still enslaved South Vietnamese. The public relations disaster caused by the Tet Offensive happened only two months before the New Hampshire Presidential Primary. In March of 1968 Lyndon Johnson managed to squeak out a victory over Senator Eugene McCarthy (running on an anti-war platform) by only 300 votes. This led Johnson to realize that he might not even win his party's nomination, much less re-election. He subsequently withdrew from the race. When Richard Nixon was elected that November, he was forced by the changed American attitude about the war to a policy of withdrawal, not victory. This, of course, led to the eventual North Vietnamese victory, because all they had to do was wait us out. When, finally, we withdrew, they gathered their forces and invaded the South. Without U.S. air support, the South Vietnamese forces crumbled. This will not happen in Iraq. George W. Bush does not have to face the electorate again. He is the only person in the world who can order an outright U.S. withdrawal, or a timetable for withdrawal. He has consistently refused to do so. I see no possibility that he will change his mind.

If I am right about the political dynamics of this situation, the Iraqi government will have the no-strings-attached support of U.S. troops at least until January of 2009.